Talk:Dua

Tawassul suggestion
Tawassul takes a different meaning in sufi texts. It may be important to include what tawassul is in sufi contexts. In the non-sufi veiw, people generally do not do this but sufis usually go to garveyards and perform tawassul through dead saints. They make them their intermediary to Allah. The hadiths are claimed to be fabricated in the salafi madhab, but sufis go by hadiths that say, "Go to dead saints" (to perfrom tawassul). It is agreed upon many scholars that these hadith are fabricated, but it should be mentioned and shown in the article that sufis perform tawassul as such. Salafihater 18:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

POV check
This article reads like a dawa / preaching introduction to Islam. It's not that it's wrong... it just cites Qur'an and hadith directly (incidentally the Qur'an has been interpretted in many ways throughout history)... so, that should be worked out but I have no concept of where to find scholarly sources on this subject... gren グレン 02:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bias
This article explains the concept of dua according to the puritanical wahhabi sect rather than mainstream sunni Islam, but this is never explicitly mentioned anywhere which is deceptive. The practice of Tawassul through the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), for instance, is a form of dua that is accepted by the main sunni schools of thought.

Sorry, but I really don't see how the article represents the views of the wahhabi sect, whatever those views may be. Perhaps you should clarify which sentences or paragraphs are biased. Aziza Cloud (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Flat English
The quality of the English in this article is atrocious, it requires a major revision. Text is bloated, tenses are wrong, sentences are flat and have little impact on the reader. I have edited some of the poor English and (hopefully) corrected the spelling of the Arabic word so that it includes diacritics. Aziza Cloud (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This article needs some heavy copy editing... I'm an Atheist though, so I worry about introducing my own biases into these sorts of articles (that and I know absolutely nothing about the topic, having been raised as a Protestant). — Ω (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter. This is not an English Grammar article. I am very glad that this reference exists. Let it be. I am not looking for LANGUAGE here. Please stop the mundane squabble and focus on the DUA and higher moral issues. Thank you. jazakallahumulKhair brothers and sisters in Islam. Hope the critics are not anti-Muslims trying to just make trouble. I am not aware of any true Muslim who would make such meaningless squabble over someone's first attempt. The truth is anyways in the Qu'ran and these Wikipedia writings are of tertiary importance. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anwar Mumtaz (talk • contribs) 12:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Grammar is important; it conveys the meaning of a sentence. Not everyone is a native Urdu-speaker who does not know the difference between a well-written English sentence and a poorly written one. Aziza Cloud (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think that Ohms law criticizing it because he is Anti-Muslim. He is just trying to make the article better by letting people know that it needs editing to fix the grammar, word choice, and references. Rabuve (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Article starts with horrible misspelling of du'a in Arabic!
Someone spelled it starting with a dhal and then a ghain!! (instead of dal followed by ain). Would someone proficient in Arabic confirm/correct this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yerubal (talk • contribs) 18:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC) APOLOGIES -- When I enlarged the font, I could see that these were not dots (no ghayin, no dhal), but rather the vowels, a damma and a fatha. So there was nothing wrong. It only looked as though those were dots. yerubal 04:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC) The only leftover: Maybe the Arabic should be enlarged, so that more people would see it clearly as it is. yerubal 04:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:Tawassul
If many Scholars agree that the Dead Saints Hadith is fabricated, then I think we should leave it out of the du'a section in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrainTC (talk • contribs) 19:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

which dead saints hadith? The permissibility of tawassul through the Prophet (sallAllah 'alaihi wa sallam) is established by the hadith of the blind man related by Imam Tirmidhi with a chain of transmission through Uthman ibn Hunayf, a hadith he rated as hasan sahih gharib in his terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.84.155 (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Please, can the Anti-Muslims just cool it down? Go help your wife and children. Stop interfering. We all Muslims know what is right and wrong from Noble Qu'ran. The elaborate arguments are mentioned in the Quran and it advise to curtail it at it's infancy for it is from the Devil. Who FLAGGED the article? Why worry about English Grammar? I wrote about DNA and science. I do not care about grammar. Neutrality on what? You mean neutral towards aggression to Muslims? I do not get it. Help to understand. In a place where Sunday is holiday and not Friday is-how can it be "neutral". Yes, Saturday is holiday too. Why? Leave it alone AntiMuslims!


 * Neutral point of view on Wikipedia means that an article itself shouldn't take a position on a given issue, but should report the facts on the issues and tell what various people have to say about them. Let's look at what this policy has to say about Tawassul. It means that the article shouldn't say whether it is right or wrong, but should say that some Muslims do it for reasons A, B, and C, and other Muslims believe it to be wrong because of reasons X, Y, and Z and reject the other sides reasoning because of such and such reason, and those who support it are unconvinced for some other reason. That is how Wikipedia articles are written. They don't take a position, but explain the positions of the people who have various opinions.


 * The reason why Wikipedia has this policy is because it is an encyclopedia which is a Tertiary source meaning that it is supposed to take information from other sources and summarize them together to be used as a source of reference. If Wikipedia adopted a position on the validity of Tawassul, it would be a secondary source rather than a tertiary source.


 * I'd also like to point out that the people who tagged the article as needing a re-write aren't saying that because they want to get rid of the article. They just want it to be a better article. When an article has good grammar, format, and sourcing, it is much easier to read and get the information that you are looking for. Rabuve (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Needs a huge amount of work
This article is struggling for anything resembling a coherent thread, while I appreciate the sentiment of some of the authors to want to preach the 'proper' way of making duas or want to show how beautiful the dua of a particular person is, this is probably not the place for this.

There is a lot to be said about dua that would work under this title that would be genuinely interesting and valid, I've touched on some of these points that I think might work in my edit of the intro section. I think it would be a good idea for editors to gather content around the recording of Prophetic duas, Allah bless him and give him peace, it would be interesting if someone could find some research on how this was done, and then the collection of hadiths with duas by later scholars, when this became a distinct literary genre, and then the phenomenon of duas written by sheikhs, scholars and awliya that became popular and widespread amongst the muslim world. This is not really the place to go on about shirk necessarily. I'm not a huge wikipedia person, so would appreciate it if some of you wikimen could take over.--Baba farouq (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Look guys, I've started to flesh this thing out, but will have to delete a lot of the current content. I've added some content on Qur'anic duas, use of the name Rabb, and duas from hadith, collections of hadith duas etc., but I can't see any strong reason for keeping the stuff on how to make a dua, conditions, holy dua, arguments about wiping the face etc. If anyone has any strong objections to deleting this please say so. I would prefer to stick to the basics, there is a lot of interesting and useful stuff we can say about dua. Speaking of Rabb, the grammar behind the word Allahumma is quite intriguing, does anyone know how it works? you would normally call with the vocative ya, rather than add the appendage 'umma', also it doesn't happen with any of the other Divine Names, I wonder why? --Baba farouq (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In search-suggestions of google and yahoo, these words were found and seemed necessary to put in the Dua article:

why duas are not answered

why duas not accepted

duas not accepted

duas not being answered

duas not answered

Note: the sections "The Pre-Conditions" and "Why Duas are not answered" are very related. Should they be merged? - Verycuriousboy (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Tagging the article
Hi all,

Given that this article has garnered several suggestions of bias/POV problems here on the talk page, and that my own assessment agrees with that, I'm adding a tag to the article.--Grapplequip (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've also tagged it for copyediting, and for source problems, as the sources provided are mostly blogs.--Grapplequip (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Assallamu Alaikum, I read about Richard and his wives but do not criticize as it is not my problem. Why are people reading this to criticize. You are chosen-that is right. You will know on Judgment Day for what. Sure a surprise does exist of Greater Evil. Please stop the jealousy. Let it be. Go away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anwar Mumtaz (talk • contribs) 12:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Bless This Mess
I haven't edited regularly in a couple years now, but this article is such a mess that I couldn't ignore it.

So here's the major major problems that I see:
 * A horrible excess of improperly quoted Hadith, Qur'an verses, and random people's prayers.
 * A complete lack of coherent, navigable explanation.
 * Lots of improper synthesis, unsourced content, non-neutral tone, etc.
 * Major concepts covered in untranslated Arabic.
 * Awful formatting, particularly when it comes to citations and quotes.

So one of the first things that needs to be done is a clear encyclopedic explanation of the concept needs to be established and made available. Dua needs to be explained so that anyone looking at the article to define the core concept will be satisfied first and foremost.

Another thing is this needs to be in English compliant with the Manual of Style, particularly WP:MOSISLAM. I've done some hack-and-slash with the honorifics but it's hard to extricate them entirely when so many are embedded in badly formatted quotes.

I'll do what I can but I'm not terribly knowledgeable on the source material of the subject, so I can really only modify and remove, not fill in the gaps. - Peter Deer (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

GOCEreviewed
I have removed the copyedit tag and placed a GOCEreviewed banner on this talk page because of the other tags, both at the top of the article and at the top of some sections, and because of some comments here. On examination of the article, I think someone who is not an expert in Islam would have difficulty doing a good copy edit on this article. --Stfg (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Dua in private vs. public dua
A distinction must be made about the practice of making dua in home or within someone's self, and the practice that is often visible in mosques especially during Friday prayers and Taraweeh Prayer in Ramadan. The latter often carries a message to masses and can be considered as public speech. In some cases these duas can be politicized or could fall under the incitation of hate speech against certain groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHamadx (talk • contribs) 14:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

New structure
I Think that the page needs new structure. I propose the below structure:
 * Terminology
 * Du'a in religion
 * Jewish
 * Christ
 * ISlam and other religion
 * Dua in Societies

Along with subdivision which is for example now existed in the article on Islam.--m,sharaf (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dua. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130127131426/http://www.areweprepared.ca:80/post/2013/01/03/Why-our-Duaas-are-not-answered.aspx to http://www.areweprepared.ca/post/2013/01/03/Why-our-Duaas-are-not-answered.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Dua vs Salat
The article needs to be clearer about the relationship between Dua and Salat. The article does contain a section that describes Salat, but doesn't explain how it is related to Dua. Is Salat a form of Dua? Are they both examples of another practice (ie prayer). This seems to be a fundamental explanation that is missing, despite the large amount of detail in the article. Ashmoo (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Picture of the Indonesian Muslim praying
He appears to be wearing a baseball cap with Al-Qaeda's flag on it, another picture of someone praying might be better. 31.154.101.212 (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)